The State of Proof as an Evaluative Category in Criminal Procedure Law

Abstract

Introduction: the differences in the scientific interpretations of the concept of “state of proof” are due to the use of different methodological approaches in its study. This category is usually associated with “sufficiency”, which, in turn, means that what is at stake meets the needs, the necessary conditions; manifests itself to the necessary extent; is available in the necessary amount. Accordingly, the state of proof in criminal proceedings should reflect the result of cognitive activity based on sufficient evidence, to summarize the process of proving the circumstances and facts relevant to the correct resolution of the criminal case, to answer the question of availability of the optimal amount of evidence to make an informed decision. The formed reliable knowledge is the “state of proof”, which reflects the characteristics of reliable knowledge and means the sufficiency of evidence to build a reasonable conclusion. At the same time, taking into account the presence of the prosecutorial bias in the Russian judicial and investigative practice, serious complaints about the validity of decisions in criminal cases, as well as the increased overall complexity of proof in the modern world, when clear criteria are needed to consider certain legal facts sufficiently proven, the scientific developments on the state (standards) of proof become important. In this regard, the author aims to analyze the essence of such an evaluative category as the state of proof in the field of criminal procedure law, to consider different approaches and characteristics of the standards of proof of the circumstances and facts of the crime. Methods: the methodological framework for this study is a set of methods of scientific knowledge, among which the main ones are the methods of information processing and logical analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction and generalization. Results: the author’s analysis of the theoretical understanding of the state (standards) of proof as an evaluative category in criminal procedure law makes it possible to use this understanding in law enforcement in the course of pre-trial and judicial proceedings in criminal cases. Conclusions: as a result of the study, the methodological foundations, the epistemological component of the state of proof are determined, the existing currently different approaches to the definition of the standards of proof in criminal procedure law are analyzed in order to inform students majoring in “Jurisprudence”, teaching staff of law schools, as well as practitioners in order to better understand the state (standards) of proof as an evaluative category of criminal procedure law.